On 06/03/2013 KENT STEFFES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MCCONELL CHEVROLET BUICK, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LISA HART COLE, NANCY L. NEWMAN, NORMAN P. TARLE and ALLAN J. GOODMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LISA HART COLE
NANCY L. NEWMAN
NORMAN P. TARLE
ALLAN J. GOODMAN
MARKER BILLY L.[
MCONNELL CHEVROLET BUICK INC.
MARKER BILLY L.
MARKER CHEVROLET BUICK
MCCONNELL CHEVROLET BUICK INC.
WOODS DONALD F.
HENNIGAN BENNETT & DORMAN
GORRY TIMOTHY J.
MURRAY TODD A.
Court documents are not available for this case.
Substitution of Attorney Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice (OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT OF CASE AND ORDER RETAINING JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 664.6 ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Brief (TRIAL BRIEF: EXONERATION OF SURETIES ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Brief (TRIAL BRIEF: ATTORNEY'S FEES ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Brief (TRIAL BRIEF: UNCLEAN HANDS ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Reply (regarding usury ) Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Reply (regarding seurity ) Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Jury Instructions (defendant's amended proposed jury instructions ) Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Brief (TRIAL ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Brief (TRIAL: USURY ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney Filed by Former Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Request for Entry of Default (AS TO McCONNELL CHEVROLET BUICK, INC., dba MARKER CHEVROLET, BUICK A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ENTERED RESTORED BY THE COURT ON 11/26/13) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Declaration Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Motion Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Memo points & authorities Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Request for Entry of Default (SEE REJECTION NOTICE DATED 7/25/13 ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Request for Entry of Default (AS TO McCONNELL CHEVROLET BUICK, INC. dba MARKER CHEVROLET, BUICK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION SEE REJECT NOTICE DATED 7/31/13 ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service of Summons & Com Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC120814 Hearing Date: November 05, 2019 Dept: P
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Dept. P
Kent Steffes v. McConnel Chevrolet Buick, Inc. et al. Case No.: SC120814
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Enter Stipulated Judgment (CCP 664.6)
Hearing Date: 11/5/2019
Plaintiff sued for nonpayment of a loan. In October 2015, the parties settled the lawsuit. Under the terms of the agreement, defendants were to pay $72,000.00 in monthly installment payments. The parties also executed a stipulated judgment for $150,000.00, which would be filed if defendants failed to make the agreed-upon payments. Plaintiff moves to enforce the settlement agreement and enter stipulated judgment for $150,000, claiming defendants failed to make payments from December 2018 through February 2019.
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §664.6 permits a court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement between parties, and to retain jurisdiction over a dismissed matter in order to enforce such an agreement.
A liquidated damage clause is unenforceable “if it bears no reasonable relationship to the range of actual damages that the parties could have anticipated would flow from a breach.” Greentree Financial Group, Inc. v. Execute Sports, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 495, 499. In the case of a settlement agreement, a liquidated damages clause must “anticipate the damages that might flow from a breach of the stipulation (memorializing a settlement agreement),” but not from the damages occurring through breach of the underlying contract. Id.
Here, as in Greentree, the provision providing for recovery of $150,000.00 is based on damages that would flow from a breach of the underlying contract, rather than a breach of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff cites Jade Fashion 7 Co., Inc. v. Harkham Industries, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 635, 650, which held a settlement agreement providing for full payment of a debt is enforceable if a settling defendant defaults on an agreement to pay less than the full amount owed. However, the settlement in Jade “was not an agreement to settle or compromise a disputed claim. Rather, it was an agreement to forbear on the collection of a debt that was admittedly owed for goods[.]” Here, unlike Jade, the settlement agreement was a compromise of a disputed claim. The Jade rule does not apply. The provision in the settlement agreement increasing the amount owed from $72,000.00 to $150,000.00 upon default constitutes an unenforceable penalty under Greentree.
Defendants must pay the remaining unpaid portion of the agreed-upon $72,000.00 settlement, as well as 10% interest from October 1, 2015. Plaintiff’s exhibit G shows $16,875.00 remains owing. With interest, the total owed is $23,763.70. Judgment to be entered for plaintiff and against defendants for $23,763.70.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases